The final draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was linked, revealing concerns about the imminent dangers of climate change. The report claims the effects of global warming are already being felt worldwide, and an increase in emissions will lead towards "severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

Temperatures have increased by .85 degrees celsius since 1880, a shift more rapid than that of the end of the last ice age. Such an increase in temperature is already causing increases of extreme weather events such as heat waves, flooding, droughts, rising sea levels, and storms. Further dangers include the risk of ocean acidification which could be fatal for many marine ecosystems.

Many of these events disproportionately occur in underdeveloped regions of the world, which do not have adequate political and physical infrastructure to address these crises. Further, these regions are likely already unstable due to issues of immigration, food insecurity, refugees, and civil wars. These extreme weather events, particularly droughts, will only add fuel to the fire and act as a force multiplier on previously existing conflicts and grievances.

While the full extent and responsiblity of global warming in conflicts will likely never be known, the recent wave of unrest across the Middle East was surely spurred on by persistent drought and subsequent increases in food prices. Food prices played an integral role in the beginnings of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions just a few years ago, and Syria's longstanding drought in rural regions surely amplified pre-existing grievances against the state, sparking the Syrian conflict as well.

The report does not give much occasion for optimism. It shows that global temperatures will likely rise above 2 degrees Celsius, the danger threshold for climate change and the internationally set goal for limiting such change. By the end of the century the report warns, temperatures may rise by up to 3.7 degrees Celsius.

A recent Bloomberg report revealed that more renewable energy projects will be commissioned this year in sub-Saharan Africa than the previous 14 years combined.

The report claims that 1.8 GW of renewable energy capacity will be added this year, not including hydroelectric sources. Countries such as South Africa, Kenya, and Ethiopia have received $5.9 billion in investment this year and may gain $2 billion more over the next two years. This compares favorably to the average annual investment of $1 billion from 2006-2011.

This gain has been helped by a boom in small scale solar projects, which have been increasingly replacing diesel and coal generators as the power facilities of choice. Gains were also made in the geothermal and wind industries.

This report follows last month's $142 million loan to Abengoa to produce a 100 MW solar thermal plant in South Africa. Three months ago $650 was raised to create a 310 MW Kenyan wind project.

The outlook for the future remains positive, as many African nations are believed to be on pace to continue this level of renewable energy generation and added capacity, and 3.9 GW of renewable energy is expected to be added in South Africa alone over the next two years. While these numbers may be small compared to China's 11.3 GW of solar added in 2013, it shows definite growth and promise for a continent sorely lacking reliable energy infrastructure. Particularly given sub-Saharan Africa's installed capacity is 68 GW total (a number comparable to that of Spain), these numbers show promise.

The G20 group of countries represents 20 of the world’s major economies, including 19 individual countries – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UK, the US – and the European Union. When the group’s meet in November in Brisbane for this year’s meeting, it is will be the first time in recent years that climate change will not be on the agenda. The Australian government – hosts of this year’s meeting – has said economic growth will be the primary focus of the talks, and the topic of climate change is likely to come up in discussions, but would not have its own spot on the agenda.

The choice not to put climate change on the agenda has found the country facing increasing criticism. In an open letter to Prime Minister Tony Abbott a group of 12 of Australia’s leading medical scientists – including Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty – called on the country to take a “strong lead” in reducing carbon emissions, or risk a major impact on public health. “Adverse health outcomes related to climate change are already evident in many region of the world,” it reads. “By mid-century series health risks are likely to be widespread, particularly in vulnerable communities”.

The scientists cite a large number of health risks posed by climate change, including heatwaves, flooding, water shortages, food security risks and the spread of disease-carrying mosquitoes. The scientists warn “the issue warrants urgent consideration at the G20 meeting”, and that the “health of present and future generation is at risk”. In an interview this week, prominent economist Jeffrey Sachs joined the chorus of those calling for the G20 to address climate change, warning that accounting for “the lion’s share of global greenhouse gas emissions” the G20 has a vital role to play and must “get its house in order”.

Australia claims to take the science of climate change seriously, but in July, the country became the first country to repeal a price on carbon emissions, while the government is also looking to scrap the country’s two key clean energy bodies and is reviewing its 20% renewable energy target. The country currently has no policy to reduce carbon emissions, with the Coalition’s preferred replacement for carbon pricing, the Direct Action climate plan, facing severe opposition in the country’s Senate. Several independent analyses have cast doubt on whether the plan could meet the country’s target of a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020.

With the threat of climate change growing across the world, solutions that are ready and available, and with growing calls for governments to act, the world is at a crucial point in history. Ban Ki-Moon’s Climate Leaders Summit in New York in September, the UN climate talks in Lima in December and the Paris summit in 2015 are all crucial moments for world leaders to position themselves “on the right side of history”, and the G20 meeting will provide another important opportunity for heavy emitters and high-income nations to show they are ready to commit to strong climate action and lead the way to Paris 2015.

This article was published under the Creative Commons License, for more information visit here.

According to a new report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), renewable sources created more than half of new installed capacity during the first half of 2014. Solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower were 55.6% of the new capacity, with 1,965 MW out of 3,529 MW created. Hydropower is currently the largest source of renewable energy in the US, but the gains to capacity were largely made in the solar and wind industries. Over the last decade, wind generation has risen from 3% of renewable generation to over 30%. It has become particularly popular in Texas, partially due to the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard, which encouraged the development and installation of wind turbine facilities. Solar sources were 1,131 MW of new capacity, standing at 32.1%. 699 MW (19.8%) came from wind energy, 87 MW (2.5%) came from biomass, 32 MW (0.9%) came from geothermal, and 16 MW (0.5%) came from hydropower. Natural gas makes up the remainder of new capacity, with 1,555 MW (44.1%) installed and no new coal or nuclear plants built. With the gains made over the last 6 months, renewable sources now make up 16.28% of the US’ total installed generating capacity. This follows the trend of the last 30 months, where from the beginning of 2012 on, renewable sources have created 48% of newly installed generating capacity, for a total of 22,774 MW out of 47,446 MW in new capacity. Given this trend and the new report, concerns have arisen that the US Energy Information Administration has downplayed the extent of renewable sources being produced, with their estimate of 24% new capacity created from renewable sources from now to 2040 not matching the current numbers.

Following concerns the Germany’s new renewable energy law may help German renewable firms unduly benefit from subsides and the surcharge on imported electricity countervened the EU market rules, Germany loosened the law to allow foreign renewable firms to import energy with the same rewards and considerations as domestic firms. This change was enough to convince EU antitrust investigators that the law fit within European Commission guidelines, and the law was then approved. Germany hopes to give birth to an “energy revolution,” replacing nuclear and fossil fuel sources with clean energy generators. The law hopes to give consumers lower prices for renewable energy, and cuts subsidies for renewable power plants. It distributes the surcharge more widely, replacing a loophole that allowed some companies to claim exemption from the surcharge if they worked in energy-intensive sectors or provided their own power plants. The law will come into effect on August 1, and will lead to an annual support for renewable of up to $27 billion, EU authorities claim. Last year over 25% of Germany’s energy came from renewable sources, and their feed-in tariff plan was widely considered a success and responsible for Germany’s booming solar market. This follows a separate EU probe against Germany’s 2012 renewable energy plan. Despite EU concerns about Germany’s pricing models, it is being looked at by nations around the world hoping to replicate Germany’s “energy revolution.” India in particular plans to follow the solar pricing model to bring more renewable energy to the developing nation. Germany’s usage of renewable sources gives the nation energy security at a time when imports through Ukraine are at risk, and this strategy is appealing to other nations with underdeveloped energy sectors and nations where energy infrastructure is not up to international standards.